[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why the Infoset?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@s...> To: "XMLDev list" <xml-dev@l...> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 9:28 PM Subject: Re: Why the Infoset? > For example, the XML > spec says that "<empty></empty>" and "<empty/>" are both well formed XML > elements, but nothing about whether they are equivalent. Infoset says (or > at least the previous draft did) that they are. Likewise, as was pointed > out earlier, InfoSet says that certain well-formed XML elements such as > "<ns::foo>blah</ns::foo>" do NOT have an unambiguous internal > representation. Without the InfoSet, it would be unclear if this is an > element named "foo" with a namespace prefix "ns", an element "foo" with a > prefix "ns:", or an element named "ns::foo". Sorry, this is unclear. I should have said, without the Infoset, we could argue about which was correct ... but the InfoSet says that there is no correct answer, because this "non namespace well-formed" document can't be represented in the InfoSet.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|